We often hear about "mad" commanders—men whose behaviour seemed irrational, reckless or outright unhinged.
But in some cases, that apparent madness masked bold thinking, deception or a willingness to take risks others wouldn't. Or maybe it *was* just advancing age & senility "talking"?
Mad commanders? Peter III of Russia, Shaka Zulu or Ney at Waterloo? (PTSD) Others?
Who fits the bill as "mad like a fox" rather than simply incompetent or unstable?
Obvious starting point might be Caligula—often portrayed as insane, though even there the reality is debated.
Others sometimes mentioned:
George S. Patton – erratic persona but operational brilliance
Erwin Rommel – highly aggressive, occasionally reckless
Thomas Cochrane – audacious to the point of disbelief
Where's the line between genius, calculated risk, and genuine and dangerous instability?
And from a gaming point of view—how (if at all) should rules represent this? Several rule sets allow for command traits, including craziness. eg "The Men who Would Be Kings".
begins to think about terrain for Team Yankee.
